[Spellyans] RLC <h> for <gh>
njawilliams at gmail.com
Wed Jun 25 12:49:28 IST 2008
If you write dhywgh 'to you', to be consistent you will have to change
the spelling of the 2nd plural desinence
in all prepositional pronouns and in all verbs as well. What a massive
change that would be!
kerowgh < kerowh, owgh > owh, bedhewgh > bedhewh, kewgh > kewh,
gyllowgh > gyllowh, may hallowgh > may hallowh.
And for what purpose? The endings ough/owgh/ogh/ugh are virtually
universal in the texts. The wgh endings are common in CW
and Borde has drewgh eyo hag amanyn de vi. Is it sensible to add a
difference between the revived language and the foundation texts? And
Besides the theoretical basis of the change is highly questionable.
One can easily write bogh and say bo:h. It would be
harder to get bo:x from <boh>.
Do you really want to write ogh! as <oh>? People will just say [o:] or
Not a good idea, in my view.
On 25 Jun 2008, at 11:37, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
> I would like to propose to replace all SWF Main Form occurrences of
> <gh> with <h> in the Late register of the SWF. Here are a few
> SWF/MF bogh ‘cheek’ => SWF/LF boh
> SWF/MF flogh ‘child’ => SWF/LF floh
> SWF/MF bregh ‘arm’ => SWF/LF breh
> SWF/MF dhywgh ‘to-you’ => SWF/LF dhewh ~ dewh
> SWF/MF forgh => SWF/LF
> What do you think?
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans